4 ms·

Oh, come on.) btw, the first chapter of The Programmers Stone explained almost everything about two decades(?) ago. All this could be summarized in one sentenc

Oh, come on.) btw, the first chapter of The Programmers Stone explained almost everything about two decades(?) ago. All this could be summarized in one sentence: Programmer is a writer, like Orhan Pamuk, coder is a translator from Turkish. Or, according to the classic - programmers are "mappers", they are inveting abstractions. Coders are "packers", they are writing piles of Java classes for a paycheck. Even simpler. Coders are Georges. (Those who have seen SICP lectures would understand instantly). Update: my two cents to what it is to be a writer. Look, there are a standard qwerty keyboard in front of you. All required symbols (letters and digits) are here. You know the rules how to compose them into words of English, and how to chain words info sentences. So, go ahead, open a notepad, or even Emacs, and write, say, 1984. It will be much better than any silly startup, you don't have "to Java", you need no AWS and Docker, you don't have to hide the fact that you cannot grasp Design Patters, etc. All you need is in front of you, all the knowledge is available since secondary school. You could even apply some agile practices. It also could be that you are esthetically sophisticated person, so you may would like to use a fountain pen and paper, or a pencil and a notebook - just go ahead. We are not asking about poetry or, god forbid, classic music composition, which is even closer to what programming is.

btilly 13y ago
I remember The Programmer's Stone. It fell into that dubious genre of essays that draws a false dichotomy that there is no particular reason to believe is real, then puts all of the positive characteristics on one side, so that readers have a new label to apply to themselves so that they feel good, and a corresponding label to apply to everyone they don't like. I wasn't impressed by that addition to the genre at the time, and I've seen nothing since to make me think that I should have been.
- dschiptsov 13y ago
  I think that you somehow did an analysis of writing style instead of the meaning. The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). I suggest you to read Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it is about exactly the same segregation, but in a much more poetical wording. And then at least a half of Atlas Shrugged, to complete enlightenment.)
  - btilly 13y ago
    The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). If you truly believe that, and believe that people can be so divided, then I suggest that you read https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe and discover that for all you think you understand about how things work and why, there are things you just use. Indeed I can give you dozens of examples of important things that impact your life, ranging from the reason why fertilizer makes good high explosives to how airplane wings work, and you'll find that for all that you pat yourself on the back for being such an intelligent and curious person, you're far more someone who just uses that which you find around you than someone who understands your world. If you can accept that, then you might get beyond your naive belief that you bring enlightenment that I have failed to grasp, and you may come to see why I think that the purported distinction is BS. After that, you might realize why I became curious about how a theory that is so obviously BS would appeal to otherwise intelligent people. And then you might find my theory about it to be enlightening.
    - dschiptsov 13y ago
      I sense lack of familiarity with suggested readings, so I doubt that "otherwise intelligent people" stuff. Hint: the distinction is not between so-called technologist and non-technologist, not even between engineering and liberal arts education, so the link is irrelevant. If one choosed to be a software engineer, note the word "engineer" one have to have understanding of underlying principles, general ideas upon which design of this or that component is based, and implementation strategy which was used. One cannot just ignore complexity and treat everything as black boxes and someone else problems. But so many do. This is the distinction. You you got a motorcycle you better have to understand how it works and why important design decision has been made, based on what line of reasoning. Then you will be able to have real confidence, based on understanding, not that anxious one which is based on a belief and hope. With this you will be able to do maintenance, fix problems, and complete your journey, instead of praying that nothing will go wrong. It is that simple. Lots of people are very comfortable with beliefs and hope instead of knowing the details. They emphasize the "getting shit done" approach and usually become quite irritated when asked questions beginning with words "why" or "how". We call them "packers". You better read the books. Btw, when MIT guys like Abelson and Sussman are saying "ignore everything below this level of abstraction" or "use the black box abstraction" they doesn't mean being ignorant and literally having no idea what's going on down below. They do have understanding of CS theory, EE and Physics. So no, no country for ignorant.
frou_dh 13y ago
Lengthening "code" to "encode" then coding is "encoding something". What you mention as the next level is being able to distinctly invent things worth encoding.

btilly 13y ago

I remember The Programmer's Stone. It fell into that dubious genre of essays that draws a false dichotomy that there is no particular reason to believe is real, then puts all of the positive characteristics on one side, so that readers have a new label to apply to themselves so that they feel good, and a corresponding label to apply to everyone they don't like. I wasn't impressed by that addition to the genre at the time, and I've seen nothing since to make me think that I should have been.

dschiptsov 13y ago
I think that you somehow did an analysis of writing style instead of the meaning. The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). I suggest you to read Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it is about exactly the same segregation, but in a much more poetical wording. And then at least a half of Atlas Shrugged, to complete enlightenment.)
- btilly 13y ago
  The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). If you truly believe that, and believe that people can be so divided, then I suggest that you read https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe and discover that for all you think you understand about how things work and why, there are things you just use. Indeed I can give you dozens of examples of important things that impact your life, ranging from the reason why fertilizer makes good high explosives to how airplane wings work, and you'll find that for all that you pat yourself on the back for being such an intelligent and curious person, you're far more someone who just uses that which you find around you than someone who understands your world. If you can accept that, then you might get beyond your naive belief that you bring enlightenment that I have failed to grasp, and you may come to see why I think that the purported distinction is BS. After that, you might realize why I became curious about how a theory that is so obviously BS would appeal to otherwise intelligent people. And then you might find my theory about it to be enlightening.
  - dschiptsov 13y ago
    I sense lack of familiarity with suggested readings, so I doubt that "otherwise intelligent people" stuff. Hint: the distinction is not between so-called technologist and non-technologist, not even between engineering and liberal arts education, so the link is irrelevant. If one choosed to be a software engineer, note the word "engineer" one have to have understanding of underlying principles, general ideas upon which design of this or that component is based, and implementation strategy which was used. One cannot just ignore complexity and treat everything as black boxes and someone else problems. But so many do. This is the distinction. You you got a motorcycle you better have to understand how it works and why important design decision has been made, based on what line of reasoning. Then you will be able to have real confidence, based on understanding, not that anxious one which is based on a belief and hope. With this you will be able to do maintenance, fix problems, and complete your journey, instead of praying that nothing will go wrong. It is that simple. Lots of people are very comfortable with beliefs and hope instead of knowing the details. They emphasize the "getting shit done" approach and usually become quite irritated when asked questions beginning with words "why" or "how". We call them "packers". You better read the books. Btw, when MIT guys like Abelson and Sussman are saying "ignore everything below this level of abstraction" or "use the black box abstraction" they doesn't mean being ignorant and literally having no idea what's going on down below. They do have understanding of CS theory, EE and Physics. So no, no country for ignorant.

frou_dh 13y ago

Lengthening "code" to "encode" then coding is "encoding something". What you mention as the next level is being able to distinctly invent things worth encoding.